Whose teaching will be reviewed? When?

Academic units should establish review cycles that balance providing faculty with regular feedback with feasibility and sustainability. Review cycles may vary based on faculty rank, appointment, experience teaching the course, or experience teaching at Pitt. For example, academic units may decide to conduct formative peer reviews of teaching during the first semester for new faculty or faculty teaching new courses in order to provide feedback that can be used for improvement, but conduct summative peer reviews for experienced faculty teaching established courses less frequently.

Units may also opt to design peer review cycles to coincide or integrate with existing schedules for curricular review or assessment of student learning. Some review processes like syllabi review, for example, can generate data for multiple types of reviews.

Units that are conducting new peer review processes should plan on piloting peer review, collecting reviewer and reviewee feedback, and making revisions as needed.

Who will conduct the review? What will be reviewed?

The purpose of peer review should help units determine who conducts them. Units should be cognizant of the fact that summative peer reviews are higher stakes and may be more anxiety-provoking for faculty. Faculty may be more concerned about how bias affects summative peer review (Berk et al., 2004). Academic units may address these concerns by:

• Developing peer review tools that focus more on providing qualitative feedback than ratings
• Training reviewers to recognize potential bias and apply review tools as equitably and consistently as possible
• Assigning reviewers from a different department within the same school
• Using review teams rather than a single reviewer
• Inviting the faculty member who was reviewed to respond to feedback as part of the review process

Regardless of whether the review is formative or summative, all reviewers should receive training on how to conduct reviews, use review tools, and how to provide their colleagues with meaningful, constructive feedback. In addition to increasing reviewer competence, conducting training can also increase faculty trust in reviewers (Kohut et al., 2007).

Units should also determine whether peer review consists of an assessment of teaching materials, student artifacts, and/or a classroom observation. Will reviews of teaching materials and observations be part of the same processes or different processes? For example, units may specify that a curriculum committee is responsible for review of syllabi, a promotion and tenure committee will conduct evaluations or teaching portfolios, and that peer observations should be performed by a faculty mentor or colleague. Conversely, review of teaching materials and observations can be combined into a single peer review process completed by the same reviewer or team of reviewers.

What is the process for peer review of teaching?

Faculty should be engaged to help create and revise specific peer review processes, policies, and tools to ensure that they are feasible, relevant, and equitable (Bingham & Ottewill, 2001).

Most peer reviews broadly consist of these steps:

Preliminary activities: Prior to the review, reviewers should talk to the faculty member being reviewed to learn more about their teaching and learning goals and to provide some context for the review. If performing an observation, a reviewer may ask about:

• the course, course description, and learning objectives
• how the course is delivered (e.g. lecture, recitation, lab or clinical, face-to-face, hybrid, online, flipped)
• the number of students
• what students have been doing in the course prior to the observation being performed
• the lesson plan or agenda for the session to be observed
• challenges that the reviewee may have experienced teaching the class up to that point or areas the reviewee would like the reviewer to focus on during the observation

These conversations may take place synchronously or asynchronously and face-to-face or remotely. Academic units should determine what type of information reviewers will need beforehand to conduct a successful review and provide them with questions to ask or types of information to seek out.

The peer review: The reviewer(s) apply a peer review tool to teaching materials and/or a classroom observation. The review may consist of more than one step, based on the review process. Depending on the tool being used, there may be a specific protocol for reviewers to follow. Reviewers should take notes that are detailed enough to allow them to cite specific examples to support their feedback. Academic units should create resources and training to help faculty learn how to complete reviews.

Follow-up activities: Reviewer(s) should conduct a debrief or follow-up to discuss and share the results of their review with the faculty member who was reviewed and potentially, others in the department. Depending on the type of peer review, this might consist of a short, informal conversation or could involve a formal reporting process. It may involve the reviewee self-assessing or reflecting on their teaching and/or documenting the steps they will take to improve teaching based on feedback. This meeting should take place as soon after the peer review as possible. If a peer observation was performed, the follow-up meeting should occur within the same week.

Although there is always some degree of subjectivity involved in conducting peer review, using tools that identify specific, observable criteria helps reviewers apply tools in a consistent manner. To ensure validity, peer review tools must align with the academic unit’s definition of teaching effectiveness. Units should engage faculty in the process of selecting, constructing, and revising tools.

Lists of question prompts, checklists, and rubrics can be used to guide peer review. Academic units may want to adopt or adapt existing tools or create their own. Tools may vary depending on the purpose of the assessment and the course or rank/appointment of the faculty member being assessed. For example, an academic unit may decide to develop a different observation tool for didactic versus clinical courses.

Sample Peer Review Tools (validated tools and examples from other institutions)

• UC Berkley Peer Review of Course Instruction (opens in a new tab)
• Peer Observation and Assessment Tool (MS Word – 134KB)(POET)
• Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) (PDF – 18KB)
• Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) (PDF – 123KB)
• Harvard Medical School Peer Observation of Teaching Handbook (PDF – 550KB)
• University of Minnesota Peer Review Tools (opens in new tab)
• University of Colorado Boulder Teaching Observation Protocol Template (MS Word – 27.5KB)
• UCLA Peer Observation of Teaching Guide (PDF – 315KB)
• Elon University’s Narrative Log Peer Review Tool (DOCX – 34KB)

Sample Tools for Self and Peer Assessment of Online Course Design and Teaching

• SUNY’s Online Course Quality Review Rubric (OSCQR)
• Evaluation of Online Courses/Teaching in the Department of Clinical Sciences at Colorado State University (PDF – 670KB)
• Illinois Central College’s Quality Online Course Initiative Guide and Rubric (opens in a new tab)
• Penn State’s Peer Review of Online Teaching Guides and Rubrics (opens in a new tab)

Resources for Inclusive Peer Review

New research and resources on conducting peer review of inclusive teaching are constantly emerging. Here are some examples of ongoing projects:

• Teaching in Psych at the University of Pittsburgh
• The Teaching in Higher Ed podcast interview of Dr. Tracie Addy on Inclusive Teaching Visualization and Observation and the Inclusive Teaching Visualization Project website, which includes video vignettes that can be used for observation training.

For peer review to be effective, faculty need to receive meaningful, constructive feedback from a reviewer. The method and manner of delivery affects how feedback is received. There are several steps that reviewers can take (adapted from Newman et al., 2012) to offer effective feedback:

• Approach giving feedback as a collaborative problem-solving experience that will allow both you and the person you reviewed to learn more about teaching. Avoid positioning yourself as an expert giving advice to a novice unless that is explicitly the purpose and process for the peer review (e.g. a mentor observing a mentee).
• Ask the reviewee to share their thoughts about the experience. What do they identify as strengths and areas of improvement? Which activities went well? Which would they do differently next time? This prompts reflection and allows you to build your feedback on their self-reflection. It also gives the reviewee the chance to correct anything that you misperceived during your review.
• Start with positive feedback. Receiving feedback can be an anxiety-producing process for the recipient. Beginning by discussing strengths can lower anxiety and increase the likelihood that the reviewee will be engaged and receptive to additional feedback.
• When delivering constructive feedback, avoid judgment. Offer examples of observed behaviors. Be specific and improvement-focused. Vague comments often do not give the reviewee enough information to make improvements. For example, if you say, “Students gradually became less engaged,” that might be true, but it does not give the reviewee sufficient information to make changes. If you say, “I noticed that students started to become less engaged after you had been lecturing for about 20 minutes. They were more engaged during the shorter lectures and class discussions. It might be helpful to break up longer lectures with some short active learning strategies,” you are telling the reviewee when and (likely) why students became disengaged and what they could do differently to prevent that from happening in the future.
• It can also be helpful to deliver constructive feedback as questions to help the faculty member who was reviewed reflect on what they did and consider how they might make changes. For example, instead of, “The tone of this syllabus is harsh and would be off-putting to students” you could say, “When reviewing your syllabus, I noticed that the language used did not align with what you told me about your teaching style. Can you tell me more about why you chose that language and what you are trying to communicate?”
• Focus suggestions for improvement on things the reviewee can change. For example, if you tell a large lecture faculty member to move away from multiple choice exams as their primary mode of assessment, that might not be feasible given the class size.

Depending on the purpose of the peer review, it may also be appropriate to limit constructive feedback to a few of the most impactful changes that the reviewee could make rather than pointing out every perceived area for improvement.

You might conduct a peer review and determine that the reviewee would benefit from sustained resources and support. In these cases, you can refer them to faculty development resources in your academic unit or to the Center for Teaching and Learning (teaching@pitt.edu).

How and with whom results are communicated may depend on the purpose of the peer review and how the data they generate are used. Academic units may decide that formative peer reviews should remain confidential, with results only being shared with the reviewee. Summative review results may be shared with academic unit leaders, promotion and tenure review committees, or other leaders in the department so that they can be used for formal evaluations or to inform program- or unit-level decision-making.

Academic units will also need to determine what type of artifact is ultimately shared. Will the reviewer generate a narrative statement, a completed checklist or rubric, lists of strengths and areas for improvement, or a report? Will the faculty member compose a response? Will aggregate data be shared with unit leaders? Units may adopt some combination of these approaches. Focusing on how the faculty member who was reviewed will use results may reduce faculty anxiety about peer review and encourage iterative improvement of teaching. For example, a unit may decide that detailed feedback should remain confidential between the reviewer and reviewee, but that the reviewee should submit a statement documenting how they used feedback to improve their teaching as part of a teaching portfolio.